Testimony of - Jo Anne Shirley
Chairman of the Board, National League of Families
of Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia
June 19, 1996
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gilman, Members of the Committee ....... I welcome the opportunity to make my first appearance before this Subcommittee. I follow a steady stream of former and current League officials who have provided testimony since the League was formed well before the end of the Vietnam War, in May 1970. I know that you understand how frustrating it is for us that such hearings are still necessary after so many years. We deeply appreciate your continued interest and willingness to focus attention on the issue.
The topic of this hearing, certification by President Clinton that Vietnam is "cooperating in full faith" with the United States to resolve this issue, is critical. Everyone with knowledge of the facts, successive intelligence assessments and this Administration's record knowns that the President's decision was unwarranted.
Before providing our views on President Clinton's inaccurate determination, I would like to provide a few examples of how we and the issue we represent have been treated by this Administration. Despite President Clinton's repeated assurances and commitments that, like Presidents Reagan and Bush, POW/MIA accounting is the highest priority objective in dealing with Vietnam, this Administration adopted the rhetoric, but not the seriousness or commitment. Just a few examples will make my point.
First, the families are no longer viewed as partners, those for whom the U.S. Government is seeking answers, but as "customers" who mean little, are owed nothing and are to be patronized.
Unlike official delegations from 1962-1992, the League has been excluded from all delegations except public ones with veterans groups and excluded from serious or timely input to such delegations.
Experienced linguist investigators, regional specialists, have been removed from in-country investigations. Those still involved at DIA's Stony Beach office in Bangkok, are restricted from performing the crucial task that they can do best to help us get accountability.
The POW/MIA Interagency Group, formed in 1980, which had League representation since its inception, was disbanded by this Administration. Everyone has the responsibility, yet no one does. We call State, they defer to DoD as the lead agency. We call DoD, they defer to CINCPAC/JTF-FA's joint field operations process. If we inquire of JTF-FA, they routinely tell us it's a policy matter, contact DoD. We know that field operations alone can't get the results in many cases; yet, if we criticize, we are accused of maligning the hard-working, dedicated troops in the field. All of this is due to disbanding of the IAG and the lack of serious policy, coordination and cooperation.
Long-accepted definitions were changed for political expedience, to demonstrate progress that wasn't really valid. As an example, the definition of unilateral repariation of remains by Vietnam now means bone fragments turned in to field operators during joint activities, rather than identifiable remains turned over by the Vietnamese government.
Unidentified remains are now counted as repatriations by Vietnam. The Vietnamese always used that counting method as a propaganda ploy, but never the U.S. Government -- unless identified as American -- until this Administration.
Excavations have ben conducted at crash sites where U.S. intelligence indicates remains were already recovered by Vietnamese authorities. What kind of signal does that send to Hanoi? What motiviation does it give Vietnam to unilaterally turn over remains being held? Why would they risk possible criticism when they can keep the money coming and achieve their economic and political objective with the willing assistance of this Administration?
Procedures for identification of remains, including the roles of CILHI, qualified consultants and the Armed Forces Identficiation Review Board were altered, removing protection for the families. Though the changes were approved on August 31, 1995, we were not even notified. We were not even provided a copy of the new procedures until our executive director insisted, and it was received at the League office two days ago. The new procedures still have not been provided to the families. The version adopted in 1987, after three years of intense effort, was distributed to all primary-next-of-kin; we believed these procedures were still in effect.
The analysical community's judgements are now compromised and given a spin to serve political objectives. Even the President's recent determination that Vietnam is "cooperating in full faith" was not the judgment of the POW/MIA intelligence community, but the decision of political appointees going full speed toward this Administration's real objective -- normalization of economic and diplomatic relations.
No longer are previously helpful countries, like Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, briefed on the issue for the purpose of asking for help to urge more serious cooperation from Hanoi.
When he lifted the embargo, the President promised our executive director Ann Mills Griffiths that, before any further steps were taken to improve relations with Vietnam, the White House would consult with the League and the veterans groups. This promise has been ignored at every step since that time, including normalization of relations, opening a U.S. Embassy in Hanoi and naming of a U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam.
Every year, the President has been invited to address the annual meeting. Not only have our invitations been declined, but he has never even met with our board of directors. Every U.S. President since the end of the war, except President Carter, has spoken to the League or met with the board. Late last week, for the first time since I can remember, we were notified there will not even be an Administration keynote speaker at the opening session of our annual meeting.
This Administration doesn't even include the League on its guest list for White House and Arlington ceremonies associated with Veterans Day and Memorial Day, such as the wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns -- the first Administration to exclude us since a Vietnam unknown --- the unidentifiable remains of one of our relatives -- was interred.
The last example comes from Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott this past Sunday on the David Brinkley news program. When asked by George Will about government efforts on POW/MIA, Secretary Talbott referred to seeking answers for us as a "residue of the war in Southeast Asia."
A RESIDUE? Mr. Chairman. I ask you. Is that an indication of serious priority? Does that match the President's rhetoric that progress on POW/MIA accounting is THE governing criteria with Vietnam? Of course not, but Secretary Talbott stumbled unexpectedly into the truth.
This Administration must think we never listened to or understood official presentations, that we are ignorant of the results of repeated intelligence assessments. According to a Joint Casualty Resolution Center estimate, approximately 1,450 + remains of Americans could be returned without any field operations. The intelligence communisty officially estimated a minimum of 600-800, and the lowest figures on expected remains recovery that we have heard were in May, 1993. At that time, the official assessment was, "In an atmosphere of complete SRV cooperation and information sharing, " the remains of 435-560 Americans were either stored or "easily retrievable" by Vietnam. An additional 225-360 were estimated to be accountable with full and open Vietnamese cooperation. The famous "mortician" reported having processed nearly 300 American remains, and saw over 400. But, according to CILHI, the U.S. Government has received and identified only 162-3 with evidence of detectable storage.
We have seen these briefings; perhaps, charitably, Secretary Talbott has not. If not, it shows the real priority as well. Nevertheless, this Administration seems proud to state that no remains returned since 1990 show evidence of long-term storage. This is a policy failure, not a success! Mr. Chairman, what happened to the others? How can anyone, much less the President of the United States, determine that Vietnam is "cooperating in full faith."
Despite this existing data, the Administration's rationale for each beneficial step the President has authorized is that Vietnam's cooperation is "unprecedented, outstanding, excellent, superb" and just about every other superlative you can think of, while asserting that he is doing it for us, the families, to generate even more such wonderful cooperation.
Despite executive orders and Congressional requirements for full disclosure, the evidence and assessments above have not been widely distributed, nor really addressed in substance publicly.
The President's certification that Vietnam is "cooperating in full faith" is an appalling decision. While certifying "full faith cooperation", the Administration also concluded that unilateral steps by Vietnam are necessary to resolve many specific cases. This Administration appears not to recognize any of these contradictions.
Ironic, but obvious, to those of us who have followed the issue closely, the Clinton Administration has accounted for more of our own lost in Laos than in Vietnam. This, despite the greater difficulty, the fact that nearly 85% of U. S. losses in Laos were in areas where Vietnamese forces operated during the war, and the fact that Vietnam has such an effective wartime and post-war system for collection and retention of all remains and post-war system for collection and retention of all remains and information related to U.S. POWs and casualties. One has to question why, and the answer is clear. This Administration never had any intention of seriously pursuing POW/MIA accountability; their course was set firmly on full normalization of relations as rapidly as political circumstances would allow.
What this Administration has done on this issue is a national disgrace. I can only surmise that either the President and his senior advisors are being sadly misinformed, or they are purposely misleading the American people and thwarting the intentions of Congress. It would be difficult for them to explain the President's determination that Vietnam is "cooperating in full faith" with such documentation widely available. It also SHOULD BE impossible for the U.S. Government to claim that Vietnam is "cooperating in full faith" knowing that Vietnam has yet to provide the case=specific documents used, by ONE INDIVIDUAL to compile the highly publicized Group 559 summary.
We and our missing loved ones deserve better. Our nation's honor deserves better. We expect the fullest possible accounting. Our expectations are reasonable, they are based on information we have been providing by our own government.
Vietnam clearly has not yet made the decision to be fully forthcoming. The League's delegation in 1994 took an entire folder of U.S. Government data, including photos, to Hanoi and presented it to Vietnamese leaders. When the Government of Vietnam begins to account for these individuals, we will know that the decision has been made to cooperate in full faith.
There are two other matters I must mention --- first, the March, 1996 Presidential Delegation in which our Executive Director participated, along with representatives of The American Legion, DAV, VFW, VVA and AMVETS. Despite problems, a basic consensus was reached to press for unilateral Vietnamese efforts. Three members of the Vietnamese Politburo reacted positively and made specific commitments to increase unilateral, as well as joint, accounting efforts. These welcome commitments were immediately undercut by the Administration's report that was distributed to Congress.
Their report clearly implied that we and all of the veterans groups supported the report's content, though it was not even shown to Ann and the Veterans representatives. In reaction, we, The American Legion and the DAV wrote dissenting views to the President, and we subsequently published our own report. I would like to include both in the Record.
The Second matter concerns recent media reports that U.S. Government payments to the Vietnamese for POW/MIA-related efforts have been misused and that even vehicles supplied for joint operations have been rented to private parties by a Ministry of Foreign Affairs agent. Perhaps the most egregious was the claim that the United States is paying some ill-defined "processing" fee for remains. We commend you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues for delving into these reports. If true, such actions hardly reflect "full faith" cooperation by the Government of Vietnam.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by saying that we feel an urgency about getting this issue resolved. Family members are dying while the Government of Vietnam is being asked to take "next step" actions. Each action will be counted under this Administration's new definitions as more unilateral cooperation, and Vietnam will again be given credit for full faith cooperation. Then, the President will likely announce another step beneficial to Vietnam --- perhaps Most Favored Nationa trade status, or possbly the basis to press for confirmation of the recently nominated U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam.
We could paper our walls with commitments by the Vietnamese government and this Administration, most of which have not been fulfilled. We urge the Congress to ensure that commitments made by the President are implemented, not dismissed by this Administration for business interests, convenience, or some unexplained, or unadmitted, broader agenda. We've fought too long and hard to be forced to endure such basic disrespect. Our missing loved ones deserve beter and so do we.
Finally, the League has traditionally worked hard, on a non-partisan basis, to cooperate with every administration and the Congress. We are disappointed, to say the least, that the Clinton Administration has priorities starkly different from this approach. It is sad that we must once again move our focus to our own government's failures, instead of Hanoi's.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.